cancel_engineering_job

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-read mutation, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: cancellation is deferred to the next stage boundary and will not kill an active native EDA operation. This tells the agent the effect is soft and eventual rather than immediate. It does not mention auth requirements or what state the job ends in.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The most important constraint, that cancellation is deferred, comes first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral nuance an agent needs. It omits return/state information, but nothing an agent must know to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it says nothing about job_id or its format. However, with a single self-explanatory required parameter, the practical risk is low; a baseline 3 reflects that the description adds no meaning but the schema field is obvious.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (cancel) and resource (engineering job) and clarifies the semantics of cancellation. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like submit_engineering_job or get_engineering_job, but the operation is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what cancellation means behaviorally but gives no guidance on when to invoke it, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer the usage context entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.